REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID G. BERNTHAL, Magistrate Judge.
In January 2013, Plaintiff Lula Rogers, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Defendants Community Care Systems (CCS) and the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS), alleging that Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of color, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. In March 2013, DHS and CCS each filed a Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State a Claim (#25, #28). In April 2013, Plaintiff filed her responses in opposition (#31, #32).
After reviewing the parties' pleadings and memoranda, this Court recommends, pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), that DHS's Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a Claim (#25) be GRANTED and that CCS's Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a Claim (#28) be GRANTED.
In June 2012, Plaintiff, formerly a personal assistant in the home healthcare industry, filed a charge of discrimination based on race with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), naming her former employer CCS as a respondent, but not DHS. (#1-1, p. 2.) In her EEOC charge, Plaintiff alleged:
1. My race is black.
2. My performance as a personal assistant met Respondent's legitimate expectations. I was hired August 1, 2011.
3. On August 21, 2011 I was discharged. The reason given by Carol Gabriellson, manager, was because I had theft in my background.
4. Non-black employees were not treated similarly.
(#1-1, p. 2.) In November 2012, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right To Sue, which also named CCS, but not DHS. (#1-1, p. 1.)
For her Complaint with this Court, Plaintiff, using this Court's form complaint for pro se employment discrimination cases, checked the box for discrimination on the basis of color, in violation of Title VII, and checked the "other" box and filled in "I am being black ball From getting employment." (#1, p. 2.) Plaintiff alleges that CCS terminated her employment in August 2011 and that she is "being black ball, because my background theft." (#1, p. 3.) Describing the essential facts of her claims, Plaintiff states:
one company but a Red Flag on my background, the other company said I took a sam's card Frome the company. the reason the seconde company try to Frame me because i had a old theft charge 33 year ago these people have stop Jobs From call me with this on my record. [sic]
(#1, p. 4.) Based on Plaintiffs responses to Defendants' motions to dismiss, it appears that Plaintiff means that DHS was the first company that put a red flag on her background due to her old theft charge, and that CCS was the second company that tried to frame her due to her old theft charge. Plaintiff asks the Court to "direct the ...